Girls Adore Homoerotic Men | Girls Chase

Girls Adore Homoerotic Men

Chase Amante

Hey! Chase Amante here.

You've read all the free articles I can offer you for this month.

If you'd like to read more, I've got to ask for your help keeping the lights on at Girls Chase.

Click a plan below to sign up now and get right back to reading. It's only 99¢ the first month.

Already a GirlsChase.com subscriber? Log in here.

Hector Castillo's picture

homoerotic
Homoerotic humor is a turn-on for women. How far must you take it (and must you be gay yourself) to reap its benefits?

As I recently caught up with a friend over the phone, he told me about a recent break-up with a girl. Apparently, he “accidentally” got into a relationship with her. This girl was quite hot and probably the prize in many a man’s eye. The entire time he told me about how it happened and how it ended, neither of us could stop laughing.

Why?

Because he’s gay.

Like, very, very gay. Nipple-piercings level gay.

You wouldn’t think it when you first met him. He’s a very dominant, tall, and muscular black guy who would give almost any natural or pickup artist I know a good run for his money. His social skills come from a variety of backgrounds. He was a college athlete who grew up and went to school in a very conservative, Southern town in the United States. Being black, he endured some racial tensions that minorities can pretty exclusively call their troubles. He’s had guns pulled on him by cops for no reason and gotten into quite a few fights over the color of his skin.

Experiences like that will toughen you. Moreover, he had to hide the fact that he was gay and play it straight for most of his life. Being black was tough enough where he’s from; if he’d come out of the closet, he would have found himself in a ridiculously difficult situation. So he put up the act, but being removed from genuine pleasure, his adversity was doubled.

Ironically, his emotional distance from his identity made him quite desirable to women. He didn’t want to bang the girls he’d hit on and approached, and he’d often rebuff the advances of women. Not knowing he was gay, these women would wonder why he didn’t want them.

So, they’d chase. They’d chase hard.

Girls waiting for him naked in his room, girls begging for him to impregnate them, groups of girls trying to gangbang him, etc.

He was truly unattainable, even with girlfriends that he eventually took to keep up his act. And even those girls would be left wondering why he didn’t want to have sex with them.

For the women, his standards seemed so high, they couldn’t even see the ceiling. This intrigued them.

So his skills with women grew, even though he didn’t want them to. He learned how to make friends, seduce women, be the center of attention, all while he played in quite a decent athletic league (he was invited by a professional team of his sport to try out for a spot).

Dominant, competitive, socially attuned, friendly, fun…

But still gay.

He eventually did jump out of the closet and move to the city I met him in. We became the closest of friends and would often go out together, either in the straight parts of town or at the homo-hangouts.

And women were always drawn to him, especially when he told them he was gay.

Now, you may be wondering how he got this girlfriend?

He met her through one of his party social circles. She would always flirt with him, but being gay, he never took any of it too seriously. They’d party together and even sleep in the same bed together. Over time, he got the sense that maybe she wanted some of his chocolate. But, he wasn’t too attracted… cuz, well, he likes dick.

Then one night, he got super drunk while out with her. When they returned to his apartment, they jumped into the bed together. While lying there and feeling a bit roused up but without any guys to fulfill himself with, he casually asked her if she wanted to fool around. She excitedly said yes. She then gave him the best head of his life (even better than any other guy, too, allegedly; he told me how ridiculous that is, because guys know what feels good, and therefore give epic blowjobs), and he, surprisingly, got hard. So, he smashed.

Strangely enough, he liked it. They kept smashing. Multiple times a day, multiple times a week.

He told her that this was only a fun, casual thing, because, uh, he’s gay.

She agreed. All in good fun.

Of course, we know how that went, don’t we? He lays the good dick, isn’t emotionally needy in any way, and is having fun? The perfect concoction for cock addiction.

She got hella addicted. She would incessantly text him. They’d hangout all the time. Shag all the time. While out together, she would hold his hand and hang over him like a girlfriend. And once, when he inadvertently – and totally unintentionally – made her feel unloved, she tried to make him jealous by grinding on some other guy (which he found funny because he was more jealous of her grinding on the guy, not the guy for dry humping her).

That’s when he finally realized how far he’d accidentally fallen into a relationship.

He eventually had to cut her off when she pushed for a relationship (and even had to swat off her attempts at reconciliation; e.g., “We can go back to just fucking, that’s fine!”).

Like I said, hilarious. I mean, I feel for the girl, but still funny as hell.

He went back to dudes and realized that he was still definitely gay.

But after hearing this story, I knew I had to finally write this article. Too good of a story.

What I’ll cover here is why women find gay men attractive and how you can apply these traits and homoeroticism in general to your interactions with women… and men. (There was a somewhat relevant article posted way back in the day by a guest poster, Sarah Williams, that everyone hated for no reason at all. It was accurate and insightful. I call bitterness. Hopefully this goes better.)

Note: no, I’m not saying you should consider shagging dudes or becoming bisexual in any way. I’m just going to explain what’s attractive about being flirty with other men (or intimate, if you choose to explore). And yes, while the increased acceptance and quantity of homosexuality in a society has been correlated with looser morals and, eventually, the fall of civilizations, it has been a part of successful and powerful human histories as well. From heroes like King David and Hercules to conquerors like Alexander the Great, male-to-male intimacy has been shown not to diminish one man’s ambition or prowess. Even baller guys like James Dean were suspected of being bisexual. In many societies, homoeroticism (not necessarily speaking of male-to-male penetration) was largely accepted (e.g., Athens, Sparta, etc.) It didn’t stop them from kicking ass on a spectacular scale. That said, I don’t exactly expect the Manosphere-boys to pour through this one without a cringe or two.

So let me clarify: I am not promoting homosexuality (though neither am I condemning it), but I am lauding the seductive power of homoeroticism.

Let’s get to it, shall we?

Comments

Alexander Abraham's picture

Awesome article and something that I've tried to experiment with. Any time that I have a good friend we always become flirty with each other. It got to the point with a coworker that I just told people that "If your friendships don't make people question your sexuality then you're not doing them right".

It makes the friendships more fun and enjoyable and you can really have some fun with people.

Neal's picture

Re: "Not knowing he was gay, these women would wonder why he didn’t want them.

So, they’d chase. They’d chase hard."

This sounds like a fantasy.

Can't say I know of any stories where women did the chase. If anything, if women are not chased by a guy she wants, she may revenge at him a little by relationshipping with another guy she's not as into, so.

Angry and furious and decapited :)'s picture

The problem with that is that people that really believe that you are gay and you might get raped (especially if you are not physically imposing). The second problem is that you might get in trouble at work if you act too flirty or touchy with other men (though that also applies when you do it with woman). The last problem is that you may get a bad reputation (that applies solely in social circles) and other non-gay man may hesitate to become your friend, so you may lose potential allies (though I've personally found that lower class people were more judgemental of those things than upper class people.

Cal's picture

Hey Hector,

This post really opened a can of worms for me. When I was in high school I seemed to know this intuitively, hitting on guys while girls were looking and making them turned on as a result, but unfortunately it led to an older guy trying to rape me which destroyed my game for years. I actually think facing that kind of sexual discomfort head on could cure me and bring my game to another level. I've also noticed that if I'm out with the guys and I have good success that night I'll naturally get super touchy with the guys, kiss their faces, hug more, shit like that, but I'd never considered a correlation.

Cheers,
Cal

Jimbo's picture

Interesting and fun read.

That said, I don't know how wise this piece of advice is: "If a guy ever gets testy or confrontational with you, (...) Tell him you’ll shove your dick down his throat; or if he gets close to you, ask him if he’s coming to suck your dick or something." -- That's only good advice if you're looking for a fight. If someone other than a (joking) close friend told me they're shoving their dick in my throat, there's an almost 100% chance I won't be reacting well. It would sound like they're trying to dominate me, and since I'm neither a girl nor a homosexual, I won't be liking that too much -- at best I'd shun them; at worst I'll escalate.

I don't hang with people who don't treat me as their equal, unless they have some kind of legitimate authority (work boss, teacher, doctor, guy who owns the place, etc.) And I think most guys are of this mentality.

Your rationale behind using homoerotic remarks and behavior to attract girls seems legit, but I wouldn't advise using it with any guy who isn't gay or a close friend, and even then, lightly and playfully so.

anonymous's picture

I'm curious what your justification for this behaviour is. You advocate fighting or being sexually aggressive (e.g. flirting, slapping asses) with men in order to prevent them from hitting on a girl that you are interested in. I am curious how you justify this behaviour. Many people with criticise this behaviour as it is not in your own physical self-defence, and the man doesn't consent to this behaviour. It seems to be that you justify this behaviour because it helps you achieve your aims, and you don't factor in any other moral reasoning.

Secondly, I curious in how you credit yourself as worthy for giving out advice. What would you say constitutes as a "professional seducer". There has been recent analysis of how the internet has facilitated a rejection of the credibility of expertise and a rise of unqualified individuals providing advice and information on a variety of subjects.

https://www.ft.com/content/e08af560-184c-11e7-9c35-0dd2cb31823a

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-02-13/how-ame...

Chase Amante's picture

I'll let Hector respond on specific tactical and moral/ethical questions on his own.

However, as his employer, I'll answer this question for you:

Secondly, I curious in how you credit yourself as worthy for giving out advice. What would you say constitutes as a "professional seducer". There has been recent analysis of how the internet has facilitated a rejection of the credibility of expertise and a rise of unqualified individuals providing advice and information on a variety of subjects.

https://www.ft.com/content/e08af560-184c-11e7-9c35-0dd2cb31823a

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2017-02-13/how-america-lost-faith-expertise

You may read Hector's bio on his author page:

Hector cut his teeth with a mix of street stops and social circle / party game. In university, he bedded somewhat north of 40 women, off a mixture of cold approach (mostly street) and social circle, fraternity, and classroom approaches. After graduation, he worked in the nightlife industry, continuing to sleep with women he met both leveraging social status in his nightclub and others, as well as at random, met off the street. He has a broad range of experience picking up and sleeping with women in the U.S. West and Midwest, as well as both Western and Eastern Europe.

Hector's been advising members of our forums for close to four years. He's many members' favorite poster, and frequently credited as the key instructor contributing to the sex and girlfriends a number of forum members have enjoyed. He offers a 12-week phone coaching course that's been a notable success; students have seen in many (though not all; different guys start off in different place) cases very rapid results, including numerous lays, first lays / loss of virginity, and girlfriends. We'll get testimonials up for this soon, once the first batch of students is complete.

He is a seducer; he is a talented seducer; and, considering as he writes about and coaches it for a living, to the successful results of his students, and as it constitutes his primary source of income, he is a professional seducer as well. His choice of labeling to describe himself is apt here.

Chase

Ericj55921's picture

So are all girlschase writers at an elite level where they can project a romantic man/socially adept man while at the same time be accpeted as a nonjudgemental secret society dude? Theres a ton to do in order to be this guy you write articles about. And thats hard, given that there are about 2,000 articles that seem different than the next. Even i want to get to this level. So is everyone 2,000 articles in advanced?

Chase Amante's picture

Eric,

So are all girlschase writers at an elite level where they can project a romantic man/socially adept man while at the same time be accpeted as a nonjudgemental secret society dude?

We do our best to exclusively have only very advanced guys writing for the site (so, romantic, socially adroit, and in-the-know / secret society), yes. Not every guy who's ever written here qualifies as 'elite man', but if he's written 10+ articles for GC, you can feel pretty safe that he does.

That probably hurts us from a short-term marketing standpoint... the sites that prioritize writing ability first, dating ability second tend to do multiples more traffic (and, as such, more revenue) than we do. Also, the guys who are good at dating are often flakey artistic types and don't maintain a consistent schedule of article submission (Alek excluded; he's like clockwork). Professional writers would be a lot easier to manage. But on the upside, we instead have guys who know this stuff inside and out writing for the site. Many of the top coaches at various date coaching companies are readers of GC for that reason.

Theres a ton to do in order to be this guy you write articles about. And thats hard, given that there are about 2,000 articles that seem different than the next. Even i want to get to this level. So is everyone 2,000 articles in advanced?

Certainly not everyone. Study is half the equation. Practice is the other half.

The guy who reads every book on billiards out there but hardly ever picks up a pool cue knows all the rules, theories, and strategies, but he can't even pocket a ball off a bank shot. You must methodically apply what you read to take it out of the theoretical realm and transform it from 'stuff that you know' to 'stuff you can do'.

Study shortens the learning curve dramatically, but it's nothing without practice. Have to have both. Most guys who read and apply methodically get pretty good, from what I've seen. Though it's hard to gauge, and there's doubtless survivorship bias; the guys who wash out you never hear from, while the guys who hang around and achieve rip-roaring success remain visible.

Some guys read, but the information doesn't sink in, and when they apply what they read they miss key steps or leave stuff out. If you're worried about that happening, I suggest this article to make sure you're getting all the important bits / not making any critical learning errors:

Chase

Anonymous 's picture

Assuming that your testimony is accurate the best that can be said is that Hector and other writers are good at having sex with multiple women, but that's it. This doesn't mean that your world views, which are manospheric are accurate. I find that this site, amongst others, constructs this bizarre narrative where feminism has subverted the natural order, the left wing liberal media is conspiring and supporting this, and it's the manospheres job to defeat this by 'liberating' men. The justification for this seems to be that the purporters know how the world secretly works, because you have sex with lots of women and everyone that disagrees is a nice guy loser that can't have sex. No academic supports this narrative (protected professional institutions verses unqualified people on the internet). Isn't it more probable that your success with women has given you an inflated ego and pretentiousness, rather than that you've discovered the secret truth.

"Flirt with gay men: low seductive voice; seductive eyes; touch them a lot; make sexual jokes; jokingly offer to fuck them; slap them on the butt; touch them like you would a girl; deep dive. If you want, take it further and kiss them… and beyond."

This is problematic. Would you (to hector) say that you grab the asses of gay men more frequently or less frequently than women? How familiar are you with these men? This is problematic because gay men are stereotyped as being more sexually open than heterosexuals, and are often the victims of sexual harassment from heterosexual males. This is because gay men are stereotyped as being feminine which contrasts with the more masculine traditional expectations of men.

I get the impression that this is partially a PR step. You recently had homophobic views in one of your articles when you stereotyped gay men wearing tutus.

Chase Amante's picture

the best that can be said

Nice try! Tell that to the men who've named their sons after me (there are a couple of 'em that I know of. Probably more that I don't).

I realize coming from certain backgrounds, this entire website (indeed, its very existence) inspires a great deal of cognitive dissonance. It can't possibly be true! They must be charlatans!

I encourage you to read this article. It was written, some years ago, to a commenter with the same expressed concerns as your own.

Chase

anonymous's picture

To Chase:

You haven't dealt with my concerns. Like a said, how does being able to sleep with women justify these manospheric interpretations of the world? Lots of people in the world manage to sleep with women; this doesn't make them experts on political, social and cultural issues. You argue that you are an empiricist, but those in the hard sciences and social sciences don't reach your same conclusions. For instance, they aren't climate change deniers, they don't believe that the mainstream media is a left-wing liberal conspiracy, and homophobia is unacceptable. Hector might be able to sleep with women, but how does that justify the whole range of conclusions made in this article?

At Alex:

The Alt-right is not just an alternative political view point (https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/alterna...). Take a look around the SPLC website for an understanding of what hate does to people. It isn't pretty, it isn't just an alternative view point. It's actually very nasty.

The problem is that this isn't just a dating site, that gives helpful advice. It purports an entire narrative that argues that society is a liberal feminist conspiracy that is lying to men. It gives useful dating advice and then uses that platform to justify a whole range of bigoted view points. For instance, homophobia present in this article, homophobia in a previous article by Chase, exaggerating the number of false rape accusations made by women, dismissing the advances that feminism has made, and outright misogyny. I can post examples of any of these if necessary.

Chase Amante's picture

Happy to switch to your side if you have the better argument / can show the science is as on your side as you say. Since you are so very concerned with my stance on this issue, I shall give you your chance to change my mind.

To start, please disprove the science in this short, 15 minute video:

Then deconstruct, point-by-point, the major points covered in this documentary:

If you dismiss these without a points-based argument ("that's just propaganda"), you lose. If you attack me as a non-believer because I don't uphold the faith, you lose. If you call me anti-science, after providing you with two videos filled with esteemed scientists making credible, data-based arguments, you lose. If you rely upon appeals to authority (like Cook et al.'s grossly biased "97% of climate scientists" survey), you lose. If you do anything other than address the science in the videos, with credible, fact-based and data-based arguments, you lose.

If, however, science is on your side, as you claim, and you are not just yelling about a religion, I eagerly await your reply; I am quite happy to have my skepticism proven wrong. In fact, if you are correct, it is imperative you do prove me wrong; the fate of the world hangs in the balance. Do a good job in your refutation of the science in the above videos, and I will happily beat the drums of the coming apocalypse all over this site. However, fail to do so, and I will remain skeptical of someting that tells us judgment is nigh for mankind's environmental sins, and the only way to not burn in the fires of AGW is to repent from our blasphemous, denialist ways.

Based on your other comments, I'm skeptical you have any real science coming for me, though. Probably a bunch of labelling, ad hominem, and misstatements of my positions. Just to make a prediction. Dare you to prove me wrong.

For instance, homophobia present in this article, homophobia in a previous article by Chase, exaggerating the number of false rape accusations made by women, dismissing the advances that feminism has made, and outright misogyny.

This position is wholly divorced from reality. I mean come on - I'm in the bloody center, statistically speaking, and you're attacking me like I'm Genghis Khan reborn. What universe are you in?

  • Chase says here's how to screen prospective mothers to avoid having, among myriad other things Chase talks about, gay children (most people outside of the super progressive 15% of the population don't want gay children) and makes a funny joke about a gay guy in a tutu: Chase is afraid of homosexuals! No I'm not, dude. I've spent loads of time around homosexuals, bisexuals, and transsexuals. I've had gay men and trannies slap my ass, feel up my chest and arms, and grab my junk, and I just laugh it off. So no... just no. The only time I'd be afraid of a homosexual was if he was way bigger and more muscular than me, was extremely aggressive, and I was locked in a room with him. Then I'd be homophobic. Otherwise, no.

  • I cite that the most rigorous scientific studies into rape allegations find that between 45% and 55% of rape allegations are false. I link to ALL the studies. Chase is exaggerating the number of false rape accusations! No, Chase is reporting what the most rigorous studies on false rape accusations report. If you take issue with that, submit a rebuttal to the journal those papers are published in and send me your rebuttal. If it passes muster, I'll update the article with it. Otherwise, quit making stuff up.

  • What advances of feminism were made that anyone here has dismissed? Point me to an article. Well, by anyone other than Drexel, whom we specifically asked to not submit anti-feminist articles (since he's never been the biggest fan of feminists). Telling guys "don't date the HARDCORE feminists" doesn't count (not dismissing 'advances').

  • "Outright misogyny" - what universe are you in, mate? Where does love of women become hate of women? Are you reading too much ROK and projecting it onto GC? Time to wake up, brother. Loving women, making love to women, seducing them, dating them, and caring about them is not 'hate', no matter what your gender studies professor tells you.

Seriously, take a chill pill. The more you people attack those of us in the center, the more you push us to the right. Lay off it already.

Chase

anonymous's picture

The manosphere is clearly routed in a rejection or a challenge towards feminism. This is a pick up artist site, or at the very least an off-shoot if you wish to draw a distinction between yourself and the others, and as a result has clear links to the manosphere.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/07/economist-expl...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/05/27/inside-t...

The manosphere argues that men are victims feminism and must restore traditional gender roles and reclaim their masculine identity. Much of these ideas appear to this site, and there are ideological links to the far-right and the alt-right.

“By the 2000s, resistance was building against a new system – the now-entrenched system of cultural Marxism, centered on silencing the dissent of any who disagreed with the philosophy through the use of labels like ‘racist’, ‘sexist’, ‘misogynist’, ‘xenophobe’, or ‘homophobe’.”

Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory purported by far-right thinkers such as Breitbart, and Sean Spencer. It has numerous links to anti-Semites. It argues that there is a liberal conspiracy in academia and the media. There has been an article on here about how you cannot trust the media, and how it advocates ‘liberal agendas’. The solution seems to be not to engage and avoid the media. This damages the legitimacy of the media to your readers. Strangely you emphasise how you are well read in a variety of subjects. However, who do you think wrote those books? Experts. Yet, you reject experts as part of a ‘liberal bias’ and colluding in ‘cultural Marxist’ conspiracy. There is a growing trend of a rejection of experts in the US and to a lesser extent in Western Europe (I posted several links to this in my original post).

Alex I recommend that you take a look at the articles below. Do you think that ‘cultural Marxism’ has taken over academia and the media?

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/cultura...
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jan/19/cultural-marxism-a...

“I don’t really know if women’s suffrage is a good or bad thing. Probably(?) not so great? But I don’t have enough data on it at this point that I have a super firm for-or-against position.”

You can’t even bring your self to admit that giving women the vote, giving them equal rights, is a good thing. This is misogyny. Your only defense is that you aren’t well informed on the matter. Why even talk about it then or mention it? Would you use your absence of knowledge to challenge democracy, the abolition of slavery, etc? If you don’t know that’s the end of the conversation, stop talking.

This article by the SPLC addresses the false claims within the MRA movement, and it addresses that false and misogynistic claim that close to half of rape accusations are false:

“This claim, which has gained some credence in recent years, is largely based on a 1994 article in the Archives of Sexual Behavior by Eugene Kanin that found that 41% of rape allegations in his study were “false.” But Kanin’s methodology has been widely criticized, and his results do not accord with most other findings… The best studies, where the rape allegations have been studied in detail, suggest a rate of false reports of somewhere between 2% and 10%. The most comprehensive study, conducted by the British Home Office in 2005, found a rate of 2.5% for false accusations of rape. The best U.S. investigation, the 2008 “Making a Difference” study, found a 6.8% rate.”

https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2012/men%E2%...

This is homophobic:

“I don’t know about you, but I don’t want to spend 20 years raising a son to be strong, resilient, and great, only for him to come home one day dressed in a tutu to beg for nightclub money so he can go get his anus obliterated by a guy who calls himself Chad the Destroyer.”

You think that having a gay son is bad. You appear to believe that gay men being penetrated is wrong, and would dislike it if your son were on the receiving end. You characterised gay men as being feminine and heterosexual men as masculine. This isn’t true. Homosexuals are diverse. You shouldn’t base your understanding of gay men on those that you interact with in gay nightclubs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/murray-lipp/gay-men-myths-stereotypes_b_34...

The whole climate-skeptic thing is absurd. You yourself resorted to an appeal to authority when you posted that video. That documentary was heavily discredited and cannot be trusted.

Alex I don’t automatically reject everything from PUA. There is plenty of good dating advice here. My main concern is the opposition to feminism that is prevalent in the manosphere and of which there are clear elements here, and the influences of Breitbart and other alt-right ideas. I am curious as how you view Hectors view that:

“Motherfucker, sociology and all other soft sciences are a joke. They don't follow the scientific method in any way shape or form and can't.”

“But of course the attention we're giving you has certainly given you a boner. If I could get it up with guys, I'd come bend you over, but alas, I have ED when around naked D. It's okay, just let me know when you get a GF and I'll come be your bull.”

This is bizarre and unprofessional for several reasons. Why would disagreeing with you mean that I can’t get a girlfriend or sleep with women? This reinforces my point about how the manosphere narrative postulates that men that disagree are ‘nice guys’ that can’t get laid. Secondly, why do you think it’s appropriate to threaten those that disagree with you with sexual violence? How do you morally justify this? Third, your rhetorical style is influenced by the alt-right. You mention cuckolding. This appears to be influenced by the alt-rights that denounces it’s opponents as men whose wives sleep with other men, often black men. You also attempt to ‘troll’ me, by being offensive instead of intellectually engaging.

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2015/08/07/getting-cucky-brief-prime...

This site is clearly linked to the manosphere. If you appreciate the advances that feminism has made to women’s lives, and you disapprove of the more horrifying elements of the manosphere you should do more to demonstrate this distinction between this site and them. The anti-immigration stance, references to Breitbart, ‘cultural Marxism’, climate denial and ‘the media’s conspiring against us’ conspiracy theories do not help your image.

Chase Amante's picture

Where's your science-based rebuttal to the scientists in those two videos above?

I pre-empted your ad hominem attack, so you simply dropped it and moved on, eh?

All I get is this:

The whole climate-skeptic thing is absurd. You yourself resorted to an appeal to authority when you posted that video. That documentary was heavily discredited and cannot be trusted.

Remember this?

If you dismiss these without a points-based argument ("that's just propaganda"), you lose.

You lose.

Also, posting a video is not an appeal to authority. An appeal to authority would be if I said, "This expert says this, so that means you are wrong." I did not say that. I asked you to rebut the scientific arguments in the video, which you failed to do.

You know, in good faith debates, the two sides at least agree to disagree, even if common ground can't be reached. But you don't debate in good faith, do you. It's all Saul Alinsky tactics; try to gain leverage on one issue, and if that doesn't stick, move right on to the next. It's not about intellectual honesty; it's about gaining power.

The manosphere is...

The old Alinsky proxy tactic, huh? Nice! Tie your enemy to another enemy that is easier to attack, then knock that easier enemy down and take down your real target by extension. Girls Chase is a site that caters to men. The manosphere contains sites that cater to men. Therefore Girls Chase is the manosphere, and look! Here are all these things the manosphere does that I don't like! Never mind that Girls Chase does the opposite, if the manosphere does them that means Girls Chase is bad too! Nope. We aren't manosphere, and they hate us as much as the far left does. Find a better strawman and try again.

Cultural Marxism is a conspiracy theory...

The term is no longer a conspiracy theory; it's simply another word for 'progressive beliefs'. Whatever it originally meant, that's what it means now. Surely, being a progressive, you know a thing or two about the changing definitions of words, do you not? ;)

You can’t even bring your self to admit that giving women the vote, giving them equal rights, is a good thing. This is misogyny.

No it's not. Women do not have voting rights in most societies during most historical epochs. When they get them, it historically precedes a move away from the summit and toward the nadir of a society. When the suffrage movement erupted in the United States, the majority of women opposed it. Not because early 20th Century American women were misogynists, but because early 20th Century American women believed women's suffrage was likely to bring about a loosening of morals, the movement of women out of the home, and the eventual breakdown of the family. Not coincidentally, all these things occurred within two generations of the passage of women's suffrage.

Would you agree that the breakdown of the family, the imprisoning of women in gray cubicles while their ova dry out, and the rise of moral relativism have all been universally good things, and women are better off because of them?

I'm not necessarily against all these things (I exclusively date professional women!), but I also don't know they're good, and I think some of them (the break down of the family in particular) are inarguably bad. Women's happiness has fallen precipitously at the same time all these things have risen. It might be a coincidence, but there sure are a lot of coincidences the left doesn't want us to examine, aren't there?

But if you don't want me to think about this, please go ahead and lay out your argument for why intellectual curiosity on a subject with such far-reaching effects, both for good and for ill, is thoughtcrime, and how best we should reeducate thoughtcriminals. Perhaps as the Soviets did, 10 years in the gulag?

This article by the SPLC...

A far left sledgehammer of an institution with as much credibility as that guy who said vaccines cause autism. How curious that nowhere on the page you linked to does the SPLC actually say why it believes the old studies are wrong and the new ones are right; it only says the old studies are 'debunked'.

Same argument you attempted to use with the videos I embedded above. If the left can't defeat it, they just call it debunked. "I don't even need to address that, it's already been debunked."

But I'll give you a little more. You know why the SPLC doesn't like those studies, right? Because they aggressively investigated ALL rape allegations, not just the ones where the man was clearly guilty, until a 'true' or 'false' verdict was arrived at. The left does not want non-'clearly guilty male' rape allegations investigated too aggressively, because if they are, the narrative collapses, and there goes a major pillar of leftist power. And the left is all about power, isn't it?

This is homophobic:

A phobia is an irrational fear of something.

If you say you don't want a son with Down syndrome, I do not call you downphobic. If you make a joke about some men's rights activist, I do not call you manphobic.

But you're just going to do the old Alinsky thing here and try to attack with labels, because it's all you've got.

Step it up amigo. All I've seen from you so far is J.V. stuff here. These tactics stopped working 5 years ago. You've either got to actually debate on points, or come up with far better moral shaming/superiority tech than what I've seen from you as yet.

you should do more to demonstrate this

Ah yes. Another old chestnut from the progressive war chest. "You should do more." Love it.

You came a little too quick here though, brother. Gotta wait until the opponent is begging for the onslaught to stop and crying for you to please remove the pressure. Than you tell him to do more, and he asks you what he should do, and you start listing out your demands and he goes and does them.

You've got potential for Alinsky-style radicalism. But your tactics are out-of-date, and without effective tactics you'd actually need to be able to debate on the points, and you don't seem to have the data or subject matter expertise to do that.

Chase

Alek Rolstad's picture

I will back off to the debate related to the alt-right. It is an american phenomenon I have limited knowledge about. What I can say however is that none of us shares racist or white supremacist views. Girlschase is not build on white supremacist ideals. In fact I believe such would be an absurd claim (not saying you are making it) as the team is constituted by:
- Ethnic europeans (Nordic,, central europeans, Slavic..)
- Americans
- Asians
- Hispanics
- Africans
- ....

So yes we are pro-diversity. That said I believe people should have the political opinion they desire. When it comes to this site the focus remains on seduction and dating. There are some sociological/philosophical pieces once in a while - helll why not? People enjoy them and we enjoy writing them. Win-win?

About your accusations regarding homophobia. Interestingly when I went out with Hector and Chase this summer, we went to a gay friendly spot (in Romania, of all places). Additionally, I know Chase personally and I know for sure that he is not a homophobic person. I do not know Hector that well, but based on this post that is purely pro-gay and displays rather positive and liberated attitude toward homosexuality, just shows Hector's positive attitudes. About the spanking asses and all that... well guess what, that is part of the accepted behaviour in gay environments. And you may call it "stereotyping", but since you talk so warmly about social sciences, you may be aware that social sciences is all about "stereotyping", in the form of inductive qualitative analysis of individuals and social phenomena.

Also, additionally you mention that Scientists do not reach the same conclusion as any of us. How do you know that? Your comment lacks depth and makes believe that you are not a social scientist. There are a few (methodological) issues with social sciences in regard to studying sexual behaviour:
- It is very hard to do qualitative analysis on sexual behaviour.... for obvious reasons.
- Quantative analysis are shaky when it comes to more intimate questions.

Additionally:
- The mere fact that the subjects knows they are part of an experiment, affects the experiment itself. According to the ethical standards (and often even the law), one has to inform the subjects that they are taking part of an experiment.
- And if you do qualitative analysis, you can as the researcher affect the subject and generate bias. Due to the mere fact that sexual behaviour is an intimate question, one may either risk getting bullshit responses .... we would have to build some "comfort" and making the respondants more at ease with the process - but then again the process is affected.

Now here is question: do you still wonder why there is such a limited available research regarding the topics we discuss here? Because we actually do qualitative analysis on a daily basis - researchers don't.

I am not a science denier - there is a lot of great material out there that backs up many of our claims. I am just saying that there are limitations playing in here and that not every of our claims may be backed by science.... but on the other hand, science rarely falsify our claims, so I guess we are safe. .

And regarding the "narrative" of the feminist conspiracy. Are you aware of something called critical realism and critical theory? Well those theories within the social sciences claim that the world can be explained in light of political narratives (class society, patriarchy, capitalism). Most feminist schools tend to be inspired by or backed up by critical theory. Then I may ask, if this is acceptable within the social sciences (and it is), what is then wrong with us doing the exact same thing? I see nothing wrong with that. As long as it is done the right way.

Now the irony here is that we have articles that also applied such critical approach with a radical (as in marxist) feminist perspective... that I wrote a few years back. I linked to it in my posts above. You may not believe this, but I actually have been taking classes in gender studies and this is actually an accepted methodology. Do you really think feminist scientists applied Big N models to make up their claims that "gender is social construction"? No it is all based on crtical analysis and social constructionism (both very related). Most gender studies that focuses on feminism (which are classified as science) uses the narrative that the patriarchy causes women to have a hypoagency... which of course is not empirically backed up at all.

We have anti-feminists on this website. And I believe feminism has caused good things in society as a general and when it comes to sexuality and dating, feminism has truly liberated women on a sexual level (I cannot count how many times the good effects of feminism has been mentioned around here). That said, feminism has impacted the dating market in a negative way as well. We have written many pro-feminist articles (related to dating and seduction of course), but also a lot of criticism. Seems you have decided to only focus on the latter.

We have posters here who are openly feminists and other who are opponly against feminism. We see both as valuable contributions.

-Alek

Alek Rolstad's picture

"This doesn't mean that your world views, which are manospheric are accurate. I find that this site, amongst others, constructs this bizarre narrative where feminism has subverted the natural order, the left wing liberal media is conspiring and supporting this, and it's the manospheres job to defeat this by 'liberating' men. The justification for this seems to be that the purporters know how the world secretly works, because you have sex with lots of women and everyone that disagrees is a nice guy loser that can't have sex. No academic supports this narrative (protected professional institutions verses unqualified people on the internet)."

I want to comment here and mention that this website has writers from different political (in addition to ethnic, cultural and educational) backgrounds and many of us do have higher education - some of us within humanities and social sciences. I am myself currently finishing my Msc in social sciences and humanities (Sociology/Social Theory and Philosophy).

We do have some alt-right guys here writing for us (why not?), but we also have liberals, liberterians and even socialists writing for girlschase. The idea is to have a representative and diverse crowd.

But here are some examples of "Academic" readings that has inspired us. These are just examples.

* The secret society theory is inspired by Victor Turner's view on the liminoid.
http://www.girlschase.com/content/social-order-sexual-restriction-and-se...

Inspiration: https://scholarship.rice.edu/bitstream/handle/1911/63159/article_RIP603_...

* The articles on Sexual economics are inspired by theories from for example Roy Baumeister:
http://www.girlschase.com/content/sexual-economics-lover-and-provider

Inspiration: http://www.austin-institute.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Sexual-Econom...

* The articles on sexual liberalism are inspired by liberal and liberterian notions (My texts where inspired by liberal feminist theorists such as J.S Mill and H.T Mill, additionally an Utopian state of nature based on Rousseau). These has been contrasted and problematized with a potential Hobbesian Dystopia.
http://www.girlschase.com/content/why-we-dont-live-sexual-utopia
http://www.girlschase.com/content/sexual-liberalism

Inspiration: https://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/econ/ugcm/3ll3/hobbes/Leviathan.pdf
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/harriet-mill/
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberalism/

* And here we have sexual liberalism understood from a Marxist perspectve, based on one of Friedrich Engels texts...
http://www.girlschase.com/content/sexual-liberalism

Inspiration: http://www.readingfromtheleft.com/PDF/EngelsOrigin.pdf

These are just examples. I can list way more stuff if necessary.

-Alek

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

Firstly, thank you, Chase, for the defense. You've had to do it several times on this site for me, considering my inflammatory nature. I thank you as always, my friend. You're a gentleman and a scholar. Always an honor working for you.

@Anon

I think Chase has sufficiently nailed your coffin by calling your bluff. Curious to see how you respond to his challenges.

"Homophobic views in one of your articles when you stereotyped gay men wearing tutus."

Yeah, I'm so homophobic that I've openly madeout and had sexual contact with men (as opposed to a Republican senator who blasts homoesexuality then gets caught with a male prost). You're fucking retarded. Take your fluffy, hollow rhetoric somewhere else.

Also, dude talks about qualified institutions? Motherfucker, sociology and all other soft sciences are a joke. They don't follow the scientific method in any way shape or form and can't. There aren't definable constants like in hard sciences. Nothing stable by which to test variables against. A guy who is good with women is far more qualified than any Ph. D. Hard to put into a "system," but he's empirically far more knowledgeable.

You parade as an intellectual, but you're full of shit. Use GC material, then go approach 1,000 girls and come back to me. Otherwise, you're going off of blind faith in whatever thought-system you currently subscribe to.

But of course the attention we're giving you has certainly given you a boner. If I could get it up with guys, I'd come bend you over, but alas, I have ED when around naked D. It's okay, just let me know when you get a GF and I'll come be your bull. You can find me on the forums (Anatman).

Hector

Anonymous's picture

AIDS/HIV

More likely to get HIV/AIDS if you engage in homosexual actitivies with men. Women so far are the one group with the lowest number of AIDS infected, but are more likely to contract that virus than pass it on. If they pass it on, they pass it on to the child in their womb.

The article suggests being irresponsible and not using a condom.
As in Hector's words:
"I’m more talking about not being responsible, perhaps a bit reckless with your health [like shagging that chick raw, even though she’s a huge slut], and making decisions that are, well, yeah, irresponsible and maybe not very virtuous)."
Big question mark here.

Men with stable minds who are secure about their sexuality are less likely to try out what this writer suggests in the article (I mean go ask Chase if you want).
Men, or people who are more likely to bend e.g. to other people's wills seem to be less strongwilled characters.
And this may indeed open pandora's box so to speak.
In the sense that weakwilled, unstable hedonists try out partners of the same gender, go without rubber, go back to meeting women as before (of course armed with the knowledge provided by arcticles on this website, being better seducers than they would have been without those and all), and at some point conctract AIDS and pass it onto women...

Onto the general subject matter, I'm in no way an expert but my impression is there are women who to varying degrees may be turned by homoerotic behaviour up to a certain point(James Dean comes to mind), whereas many seem to be repulsed by actual homosexuality, at least on the receiving end (although they still have their gay platonic gossip and shopping buddy).
As mentioned in the article historic figures like Alexander the Great (who wasn't bending over was he?!) clearly bear testimony to the fact that manly, strongwilled, charismatic men who had a very attractive aura about them on women sometimes happened to be gay or bisexual.
Give the article credit where credit is due.

I am not pointing a moral finger here on homosexuals, I couldn't care less. But if you're a weakwilled, unstable personality just be careful what you wish for.

Usernotfound's picture

I dont know why people here see you as a role model here. Being overly hedonistic is not something to strive for. There has to be a healthy balance. You remind me of the Wolf of walstreet guy, who engaged in reckless hedonism during his heyday. Eventually youll crash and burn like he and othes have if you continue like this. What's worse is youll take a few people with you who take your advice to heart. Good luck.

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

Sorry to break it to you, but you're going to die. If some dude gets AIDS and dies a few years earlier than he's supposed to, what the fuck does it matter?

Also, I never said you had to go fuck dudes. I put a huge fucking disclaimer in the beginning to address that. I don't know how you got on the internet. You're obviously illiterate.

"Worlds on worlds are rolling over from creation to decay,
Like bubbles on a river, sparkling, bursting, borne away."

Usernotfound's picture

"If some dude gets AIDS and dies a few years earlier than he's supposed to, what the fuck does it matter?" If you dont care about how your advice affects your readers, why the hell are you even giving advice?

AIDS is just one. Having unprotected sex will eventually land someone something. Going full hedonistic always leads to bad things eventually.

Btw, nobody cares about your cheesy philosophical quotes. Youre not deep, youre just an immature fratfag.

Author
Hector Castillo's picture

It's boys like you that make it so easy for me to win. I don't even have to do anything but laugh as you talk your way into getting cucked.

Thanks, babygirl. Xoxo

John Greco's picture

This site is basically information you find on the Web, and like everything, you should be filtering and thinking and making conclusions. Hector suggested, mildly, to be kinda reckless sometimes. He didn't say something specific. You will decide when, how and if you will follow that advice. I guess you're an adult, since you're reading GC.

Plus, Hector the article about lying - came out just the right time - bless you. Maybe sometime, Chase and you will come to Athens-Greece, and me and my wingman will show you tons of places to have fun.

John

Annon's picture

I love this article...I can attest that this article is real because I was able to run a train on a hot girl while hanging out in a night club so thats for breaking down the mechanics behind girls attraction to homoerotic men (The girls boyfriend apparently thought I was attractive hence being at a gay nightclub). Couldn't help but interject in the political debate on the issue of climate change. I think it's important to note that Exxon Mobil has emails showing that they knew about the effects of man-made climate change since the 70s. (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change...). I think that when one of the priemier institutions in the world promoting climate denial has scientists that admit they knew about climate change before it became a public issue, that tells me that climate change is a real issue. Theres nothing wrong with being a skeptic, but at a certain point theres enough evidence to prove that climate denial is bullshit I think. I believe the scientists that say that pumping chemicals and smog and all that crap in the air is bad for the environment and we need to do something drastic to stop it, otherwise civilization may collapse. Americans may have to alter our lifestyle in order to stop killing our planet. We would have to restructure the entire economy so we consume less food gass and other electronics. I don't think saving our country or our planet should be a partisan issue. We all breath the same air and right...(uses you got a ticket to Mars or some shit).

P.S. I love what you guys do. I don't always agree with you politically, but that doesn't mean you don't do good work. I have benefited from it personally by becoming more assertive and socially intelligent. Keep it up

Leave a Comment

One Date girl next to the number one

Get The Girl In Just One Date

It only takes one date to get the girl you want. Best of all, the date's easy to get… and girls love it.

Inside One Date, You'll Learn

  • How to build instant chemistry
  • Ways to easily create arousal
  • How to get girls to do what you want
  • The secret to a devoted girlfriend

…and more great Girls Chase Tech